Verizon Is Killing Tumblr's Fight For Net Neutrality (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: In 2014, Tumblr was on the front lines of the battle for net neutrality. The company stood alongside Amazon, Kickstarter, Etsy, Vimeo, Reddit, and Netflix during Battle for the Net's day of action. Tumblr CEO David Karp was also part of a group of New York tech CEOs that met with then-FCC chairman Tom Wheeler in Brooklyn that summer, while the FCC was fielding public comment on new Title II rules. President Obama invited Karp to the White House to discuss various issues around public education, and in February 2015 The Wall Street Journal reported that it was the influence of Karp and a small group of liberal tech CEOs that swayed Obama toward a philosophy of internet as public utility. But three years later, as the battle for net neutrality heats up once again, Tumblr has been uncharacteristically silent. The last mention of net neutrality on Tumblr's staff blog -- which frequently posts about political issues from civil rights to climate change to gun control to student loan debt -- was in June 2016. And Tumblr is not listed as a participating tech company for Battle for the Net's next day of action, coming up in three weeks. One reason for Karp and Tumblr's silence? Last week Verizon completed its acquisition of Tumblr parent company Yahoo, kicking off the subsequent merger of Yahoo and AOL to create a new company called Oath. As one of the world's largest ISPs, Verizon is notorious for challenging the principles of net neutrality -- it sued the FCC in an effort to overturn net neutrality rules in 2011, and its general counsel Kathy Grillo published a note this April complimenting new FCC chairman Ajit Pai's plan to weaken telecommunication regulations.

Comments

Ajit Pai is ex Verizon Lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely fails to mention that Ajit Pai is an ex Verizon Lawyer.

Re:Ajit Pai is ex Verizon Lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely fails to mention that Ajit Paid is an ex Verizon Lawyer.

Fixed that for you.

This is what happens

[rsilvergun]

When you let a small group of people buy everything. It's why wealth inequality is such a problem. Money is power, and we're giving it all to .1%.

Re:This is what happens

[GLMDesigns]

"giving?"

You're giving money away? Can I have some?

I've never given money to Amazon. I've bought things from them, but never gave them any money?

I wonder? Why are people giving so much money away?

Re:This is what happens

[nine-times]

Many of us are voting for elected officials who push policies to remove regulations and cut taxes on the richest people and businesses. It's a policy of granting wide latitude and control to people who already have immense economic power. It's a policy of wealth redistribution, but redistributing wealth from the public and the middle class, and pouring all the money we can into a tiny group of people.

Whether you like the word "giving", we're setting up a system that moves money to the top 1%, and not really getting anything in return.

Re:This is what happens

[GameboyRMH]

Cutting taxes is not giving.

Well then raising taxes is not taking :-)

Re:This is what happens

[nine-times]

This is a classic straw man when talking about taxes on the wealthy. Nobody is talking about taxing the top 0.01% at 100%. Nobody is talking about taxing *only* the top 0.01%. Nobody is talking about violence.

But tax money is used to build infrastructure, provide security, and maintain a stable society. If you do those things off the backs of the middle class and don't ask the rich to pay their fair share, it is "giving". If those rich people don't want to contribute, then fine, let's take away the protections they derive from our society. Let them try to build a product without an educated and healthy workforce. Let them try to sell that product without customers. Let their businesses survive without infrastructure. Let them try to hold onto their money without government protected banks. Let's do that for a while, and see how it turns out.

Billionaires shouldn't be paying a lower effective tax rate than someone making $100k/year,

Re:This is what happens

[GameboyRMH]

Taking less is still taking. It does not become giving until the taking is less than zero, like what happens with those at the bottom.

Which is getting close to my point. People at the top receive more from government than they pay in taxes, overall similar to those at the very bottom. They benefit from plenty of workers who went to public schools and pay them peanuts. They benefit greatly from public roads and register their supercars in Montana. They run money through foreign tax havens at every opportunity. So yes, cutting their taxes even more is "giving."

Re:How's that capitalism going for you, US?

[PopeRatzo]

I have Verizon shares. They are paying a 5% dividend yield which is pretty awesome for 2017. Greed is good!

That $0.58 per share you're going to get on July 6 is eaten up by higher prices and the increased costs of no net neutrality, but fantasies can keep you warm at night.

Boycott Verizon

[GameboyRMH]

For anyone who doesn't know, Verizon is the arch-enemy of net neutrality. Most of the corporate (and even government, hi Ajit!) opposition to net neutrality today can be traced back to them. If you're a Verizon customer, switch if you're able to.

I realize you might not be able to switch because the wonderful free market of the USA often has de facto telecom monopolies ruling certain regions, but if you can, do.

Re:Boycott Verizon

[JestersGrind]

I did exactly this about two weeks ago. I dropped Verizon as my family's mobile provider and joined T-mobile who is pro net neutrality. I encourage anyone who is their customer to do the same. They are truly an evil company. I've been very pleased with T-Mobile so far and should have made the switch a long time ago. Vote with your wallets. That's the only thing they understand.

Re:How's that capitalism going for you, US?

[PopeRatzo]

And the fantasy of Net Netrality making it magically any better and keeping costs down should do the same.

OK...

At some threshold someone will come along that CAN undercut Verizon on costs and will ream them hard when they do. Hell, all it'd take is having largely the same level of coverage and be 25% cheaper and they'd put Verizon OUT OF BUSINESS.

Now who's engaging in fantasy?